Barriers at a tax preparation office have led to a legal challenge over accessibility for people with disabilities, raising questions about compliance with federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws. On March 6, 2026, Altaune Brown filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against H&R Block Eastern Enterprises Inc. and Foxwood Realty LLC.
According to the filing, Brown is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility and resides in New York County. The complaint states that on February 6, 2025, Brown attempted to enter the premises at 323 1st Avenue in New York City—operated by H&R Block—to seek tax filing services but was unable to do so due to architectural barriers. Specifically, the document describes “a large step leading to the entrance from the sidewalk” as preventing access and restricting paths of travel into the building.
The lawsuit alleges that these conditions denied Brown “full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of” the services offered within the premises. The complaint further claims that no assistance was provided by staff or management to help Brown enter or use the facilities. As a result, Brown reports being forced to seek alternative tax services elsewhere.
Brown asserts that these barriers violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as provisions of both the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The plaintiff argues that H&R Block Eastern Enterprises Inc., as operator of a national tax service agency at this location, along with Foxwood Realty LLC as property owner or manager, are jointly responsible for ensuring compliance with accessibility standards.
The complaint outlines several specific alleged violations: lack of an accessible route from public sidewalks due to steps at the entrance; service counters exceeding allowable height limits; inadequate signage; lack of safe emergency egress; and failure to implement policies ensuring accessibility for disabled individuals. According to Brown’s counsel, “Defendants’ Premises lacks an accessible route from site arrival points…due to the step leading from the sidewalk to the entrance.” Additional allegations include failure “to adhere to a policy, practice, and procedure” guaranteeing readiness for disabled patrons.
The legal arguments cite requirements under federal law mandating removal of architectural barriers where readily achievable since January 28, 1992. The complaint also references local statutes prohibiting discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation. It is claimed that both defendants have profited from operating or leasing space without making necessary modifications for accessibility.
Brown seeks several forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgment confirming violations; permanent injunctions ordering immediate alterations for compliance; provision of auxiliary aids or alternative methods if needed; compensatory damages including statutory fines; punitive damages for what is described as willful conduct; disgorgement of profits derived during periods of non-compliance; reasonable attorney fees; costs; expenses; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The filing requests that if defendants do not comply promptly with court orders regarding permanent injunctions or remediation measures, “the Court should immediately order the closure of Defendants’ Premises…until such time that Defendants’ Premises is made fully compliant.” The document also notes that only after a full inspection can all potential violations be identified.
Legal representation for Altaune Brown is provided by Bradly G Marks of The Marks Law Firm P.C., located at 155 E 55th Street in New York City. The case is docketed under Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-1878.
Source: 126cv01878_Altaune_Brown_v_H_&_R_Block_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
